|
Post by khyron1144 on Nov 18, 2003 0:38:11 GMT -5
I believe that violence is always wrong in a moral sense.
Always.
All forms of violence.
Murdering somebody for any reason is wrong. Murdering an attacker is as wrong as being an attacker, no matter what the law says. War is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 18, 2003 1:07:39 GMT -5
Believe it or not, despite my anti-Iraq stance, I am not a pacifist. There are times when war is unavoidable and even preferable to the status quo. There are times when the nations of the world must stand up together and say, "No!" in a loud and clear voice. And, there are times when innaction is immoral. The nations of the world stood by as Pol Pot murdered several hundred thousand of his own people and did nothing. The nations of the world stood by and watched as Hitler pogrommed his way across Europe. The nations of the world have sat on their asses and done nothing about central Africa for decades. This is immoral and wrong. There must be a time when we stand up and do what is right.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Nov 18, 2003 1:30:14 GMT -5
I hate to concede the point, so early on, but I will admit that sometimes, while war is still not right, it is at least the least wrong.
If you view WW II as an attempt to stop the Holocaust, then, yes that was one of those times. If you view it as petty revenge for Pearl Harbor, that accidentally caused some good then it wasn't. Or you could take bth views at once and say that it was and wasn't, which makes it as morally cloudy as any action undertaken in the real world.
I prefer as my example of choice, The American Revolution. Every American school child is taught to think of it as one of the good wars, where our cause was just and the good guys won. I prefer to think of it as redressing a wrong with a bigger wrong.
There were a number of ways for the colonists to redress the wrongs of their homeland. They could have gone on strike. Imagine what would happen if tobacco, cotton, and wood weren't coming back to england.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 18, 2003 1:41:35 GMT -5
That's a somewhat simplistic view of the prime cause of the American Revolution. It wasn't so much about tea etc as absentee rule.
But I see your point though. Canada, another British colony (at least after a while) never had a revolution. We separated from England gradually and peacefully. As did Australia. The result is two of the most peaceful nations on the planet. Maybe you do have a point.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 18, 2003 4:05:07 GMT -5
Lord. I wanted to jump in like a rabid dog and bite the pacifistic hand, and I still don't personally like the pacificistic model. I would point out that actual pacifism does not survive aggression...
But, the "more nearly" pacificistic ideal that is exemplified in both Canada and Australia most definately DOES have an appeal to it and is a viable precedent.
Of course neither country is pacifistic in nature, but that may be another topic entirely.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 18, 2003 4:17:23 GMT -5
'scuse me? How can you say that Canada or Australia is not pacifistic? Both countries have never launched an agressive war. Both countries have a well trained, but pitifully small armed forces. Neither country has ever had a war on its own soil. Neither country has ever actually declared war on another country first. Neither country is armed with nuclear weapons and both follow a nuclear test ban treaty. The list goes on and on. I would say that the only more peaceful country than Australia or Canada might be Iceland.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Nov 18, 2003 9:00:31 GMT -5
Peaceful and pacificistic are two different things. Both have, as you pointed out, small but extremely well trained militaries and both... well, step into a bar in the Canadian Klondike or the Outback and inform them that they're pacifists and see if you aren't searching for some of your teeth when you come to.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by MrLemurBoy on Nov 18, 2003 9:44:57 GMT -5
Hmm... if you call Canadians pacificts, it may not be that bad. Insult a Canadian's beer or hockey team, however, and you can be sure that pacifism is goin out the window, at about the same time you are
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Nov 18, 2003 12:59:16 GMT -5
I am a martialist. I believe that violence is not only a necessary part of life, but as natural as the sun or seas. One of the few things that defines humans from other species is its ease in suppressing the aversion to killing its own species. There have been great pacifist civilizations in the past (notably India), but until the world is devoid of violence, they will fall with the greatness that they preach. There have been great pacifist leaders in the past too (Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King), but the meer fact is that every one of them was murdered by a non-pacifist. Until crude European mentalities can be rid of this world, the best, and perhaps the only way to survive is through force of arms. I'm not condoning violence commited in anger, of course, but violence commited in a state of tranquility and understanding of its necessity (a trait that is extremely lacking in the modern world).
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Nov 18, 2003 13:33:25 GMT -5
Ideally, Khyron, I'm with you. However, pacifism is good in theory, bad in practice. Until the entire world shares your theory, pacifists will be walked all over and even slaughtered. A theory like that can only survive if the world is not a dog-eat-dog place, and sadly it still is.
This thread brought to mind a movie I think everyone should see... Bowling for Columbine. Yes, it's based around the Columbine school shootings, but it evaluates violence in our culture. I'm not exaggerating when I say I think everyone should see this movie. I want to show this to my kids when I have any and when they're old enough to understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Cyberpaladin85 on Nov 18, 2003 21:50:43 GMT -5
I saw that movie. It was actually quite good and informative.
Hm, USA revolted violently and is now amongst the most violent nations in the world. Canada + Austrailia peacefully broke away and are not amongst the most violent nations in the world. Interesting...
|
|
|
Post by Archmage Turanis Altaine on Nov 18, 2003 22:03:07 GMT -5
I am a Martial Artist as well and have the same veiw that violence is part of life. However, contrary to what you see, I do not look for trouble and I always say the same thing before every fight to give them a choice.
"Walk Away. Crawl Away. Make your choice."
Most who see me or know me do not say I am bragging when I saw this, which is true. I merely state the facts and let the decide, for though they may win the fight they will not do so unscathed. I prefer not to fight, but when I see someone else's Life, Religion, or way of life being threatened I act. I am slow to fight true, but when I do I have no regrets.
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Nov 20, 2003 19:38:12 GMT -5
My take on all of this is that war, like it or not, is a necessary part of life. Conflict is a necessary part of life. Like it or not, conflict and wars bring about change.
It's kinda like evolution versus punctuated equilibrium. Evolution brings about slow changes, gradually, over generations. Conflict, like punctuated equilibrium, is the faster version. Same result, just faster and dirtier.
You also have to keep in mind, like it or not, that sometimes violence is necessary. People feel oppressed, and that leads to revolution. People see suffering and vile acts, which leads them to fight for what they believe in.
Does that mean violence is always the answer? Certainly not. I believe that sometimes the best solution is to walk away. I also recognize that is not always possible. Sometimes diplomacy works, sometimes reason works, and sometimes it takes conflict. It cannot be avoided, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Nov 20, 2003 23:53:03 GMT -5
There is always conflict. Its the unending rule of cause and effect that propels our society and causes us to evolve. One can't stop conflict, merely either escalate it or diffuse it. The best a person can hope for on an individual level is to diffuse it and attempt to keep it out of the way of one's goals (in this example, to keep conflict from killing you). If conflict tries to kill you, I cannot stress how ineffective pacifism is. I realize the value of diplomacy (and have effectively diffused fights before they happened by using it) and know that it is just as powerful a weapon as any other, but also realize the absolute need of physical force when the situation changes to accomodate it.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Nov 21, 2003 1:08:48 GMT -5
I think violence only leads to more violence.
In order to achieve any kind of peace, people have to stop fighting.
My hope is that one day everyone will be a pacifist.
Sometimes, the way to stand up for your morals is to lay down and die for them.
|
|